Positive parenting style and positive health beyond the authoritative: Self, universalism values, and protection against emotional vulnerability from Spanish adolescents and adult children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recent research is fully questioning whether the combination of parenting warmth and strictness (the authoritative style) is always identified as positive parenting across the globe. This study analyzes parenting styles and the positive health of adolescents and adult children. Methods: The sample was 2,090 Spanish children (59.9% women), from four age groups: 600 adolescents, 591 young adults, 507 middle-aged adults, and 392 older adults. Parenting styles (indulgent, authoritative, authoritarian, and neglectful) were obtained by warmth and strictness measures. Children's positive health was measured by self (family self-concept, self-esteem, and negative self-efficacy), universalism values, and emotional vulnerability. Results: The main results showed that the indulgent parenting style was associated with equal and even better scores than the authoritative style, whereas the authoritarian and neglectful styles were consistently associated with low scores in positive health indicators for all age groups. However, two triple interactions of sex by age group by parenting style showed that women children from neglectful families reported the lowest family self-concept in old age and the highest emotional vulnerability in middle age. Discussion: The study findings question the universal benefits of the so-called positive parenting (the authoritative style) for positive health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".